10/17/23
Scholarly Reflections
Pardee, Nancy. "Chapter One: The Didache and the Question of Genre." The Genre and Development of the Didache. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012, 4-64.
After a brief summary of the contents of the Didache, Pardee notes that the literary style results in difficulty in understanding the overall construction. She characterizes it as "elliptical," saying, "apparently certain background knowledge on the part of the ancient reader was assumed, knowledge lost, however, to the modern audience, with the resultl that the text appears laconic" (Pardee 2012, 6). There are few detailed transitions between major sections, which provide sparse background information about their topics. Pardee considers that identifying the overall genre may be helpful in clarifying some of these matters (Pardee 2012, 7).
Pardee continues with a review of 20th century analyses of the genre of the Didache, noting that most scholars identify features of a church order but find the Didache to have a more limited scope than the church orders which arise starting about the third century (Pardee 2012, 8-31). She enters in detail into the points of view of numerous authors. Pardee concludes that the Didache is some sort of handbook which describes morals, rituals, and discipline. It is not clear if it falls into the character of other texts which are considered "church orders" (Pardee 2012, 30).
This conclusion moves Pardee on to a discussion of the term and genre "church order," a term which is first found in the 16th century (Pardee 2012, 31). Because the church orders describing liturgy and administrative structure for churches in the Reformation were similar in contents to writings from antiquity, the name was applied to writings in the past (Pardee 2012, 32). Pardee questions whether our modern concepts of genre may have tempered our understanding, thus creating an inappropriate view of the classification of the documents when they were written. Since the 16th century, studies have been engaged in with the intent of identifying detailed descriptions of the philosophical outlook of the works identified as "teaching" or "doctrine" (Pardee 2012, 33ff).
The Didache's discovery and publication brought new life to the studies in 1883, and the scholarly community had a "new" text to study (Pardee 2012, 37). Pardee catalogs a number of commentators' descriptions, indicating a broad consensus that the text was quickly recognized as a doctrinal and liturgical handbook. After the initial surge of interest, Pardee finds a generalization of interest, with other similar texts becoming classified as church orders (Pardee 2012, 43-44). The study of the Didache continued, with hypothetical division into redactional layers articulated by James Vernon Bartlett as early as 1924 (Pardee 2012, 45-46). Study of sources for the Two Ways material began in earnest after the 1900 publication of Doctrina Apostolorum, from the third century, containing most of Didache 1.1-6.1 (Pardee 2012, 46). Theories of the origin of the Two Ways abounded, including that of an oral catechetical formulation (Pardee 2012, 48). This, in turn, may have led to scholarly inquiry into the Two Ways teaching. Following the discovery of the Rule of the Community (1QS) among the Dead Sea Scrolls, consideration of Two Ways as its own genre grew (Pardee 2012, 49-50). In essence, the genre was a community rule in formulaic terms.
Pardee notes the importance of observing the structure of a text as a whole so as to evaluate the function of its component parts (Pardee 2012, 52). She observes that there is "a current trend to reject the idea of compositional stages and to see the text instead as the work of one author, created with or without the use of outside sources" (Pardee 2012, 53). She uses Milavec's commentary as an example of interpretation of the work as a cohesive whole, discussing Milavec's strengths and weaknesses in some detail. Another scholar of note who takes the Didache as a coherent whole is Ian Henderson, whose work Pardee reviews in detail (Pardee 2012, 58-62). Pardee's conclusion is that while Milavec and Henderson make a noteworthy attempt at interpretation, a more thoroughgoing text-liguistic study is called for (Pardee 2012, 62). Pardee finally notes that David Hellholm created a text-linguistic outline of the Didache at approximately the same time as her dissertation was completed (Pardee 2012, 63).
Scholarly Reflections
Pardee, Nancy. "Chapter One: The Didache and the Question of Genre." The Genre and Development of the Didache. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012, 4-64.
After a brief summary of the contents of the Didache, Pardee notes that the literary style results in difficulty in understanding the overall construction. She characterizes it as "elliptical," saying, "apparently certain background knowledge on the part of the ancient reader was assumed, knowledge lost, however, to the modern audience, with the resultl that the text appears laconic" (Pardee 2012, 6). There are few detailed transitions between major sections, which provide sparse background information about their topics. Pardee considers that identifying the overall genre may be helpful in clarifying some of these matters (Pardee 2012, 7).
Pardee continues with a review of 20th century analyses of the genre of the Didache, noting that most scholars identify features of a church order but find the Didache to have a more limited scope than the church orders which arise starting about the third century (Pardee 2012, 8-31). She enters in detail into the points of view of numerous authors. Pardee concludes that the Didache is some sort of handbook which describes morals, rituals, and discipline. It is not clear if it falls into the character of other texts which are considered "church orders" (Pardee 2012, 30).
This conclusion moves Pardee on to a discussion of the term and genre "church order," a term which is first found in the 16th century (Pardee 2012, 31). Because the church orders describing liturgy and administrative structure for churches in the Reformation were similar in contents to writings from antiquity, the name was applied to writings in the past (Pardee 2012, 32). Pardee questions whether our modern concepts of genre may have tempered our understanding, thus creating an inappropriate view of the classification of the documents when they were written. Since the 16th century, studies have been engaged in with the intent of identifying detailed descriptions of the philosophical outlook of the works identified as "teaching" or "doctrine" (Pardee 2012, 33ff).
The Didache's discovery and publication brought new life to the studies in 1883, and the scholarly community had a "new" text to study (Pardee 2012, 37). Pardee catalogs a number of commentators' descriptions, indicating a broad consensus that the text was quickly recognized as a doctrinal and liturgical handbook. After the initial surge of interest, Pardee finds a generalization of interest, with other similar texts becoming classified as church orders (Pardee 2012, 43-44). The study of the Didache continued, with hypothetical division into redactional layers articulated by James Vernon Bartlett as early as 1924 (Pardee 2012, 45-46). Study of sources for the Two Ways material began in earnest after the 1900 publication of Doctrina Apostolorum, from the third century, containing most of Didache 1.1-6.1 (Pardee 2012, 46). Theories of the origin of the Two Ways abounded, including that of an oral catechetical formulation (Pardee 2012, 48). This, in turn, may have led to scholarly inquiry into the Two Ways teaching. Following the discovery of the Rule of the Community (1QS) among the Dead Sea Scrolls, consideration of Two Ways as its own genre grew (Pardee 2012, 49-50). In essence, the genre was a community rule in formulaic terms.
Pardee notes the importance of observing the structure of a text as a whole so as to evaluate the function of its component parts (Pardee 2012, 52). She observes that there is "a current trend to reject the idea of compositional stages and to see the text instead as the work of one author, created with or without the use of outside sources" (Pardee 2012, 53). She uses Milavec's commentary as an example of interpretation of the work as a cohesive whole, discussing Milavec's strengths and weaknesses in some detail. Another scholar of note who takes the Didache as a coherent whole is Ian Henderson, whose work Pardee reviews in detail (Pardee 2012, 58-62). Pardee's conclusion is that while Milavec and Henderson make a noteworthy attempt at interpretation, a more thoroughgoing text-liguistic study is called for (Pardee 2012, 62). Pardee finally notes that David Hellholm created a text-linguistic outline of the Didache at approximately the same time as her dissertation was completed (Pardee 2012, 63).
RSS Feed